Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB), challenged a common judgment and order of the Industrial Court, which allowed complaints filed by the respondents under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The respondents, Sudhir Kamalkar Ayachit and Anant Narhari Sonar, were employed as telephone operators on a contractual basis since 1996. The Industrial Court declared that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act by not conferring permanency benefits on the complainants. It directed the petitioner to cease and desist from such practice, confer permanency benefits with consequential monetary benefits from 04-06-1996, pay arrears after fixation of pay within six months, and pay each complainant Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs. The petitioner argued that the respondents were purely contractual employees and that the Industrial Court's order was erroneous. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no perversity or error of law in the Industrial Court's order. It noted that the respondents had been working continuously since 1996 and that the petitioner's failure to grant permanency amounted to unfair labour practice. The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Permanency Benefits - Item 6 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court allowed complaints under Section 28(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act, declaring that the employer engaged in unfair labour practice by not conferring permanency benefits on complainants who were employed as telephone operators on contractual basis since 1996. The court directed conferment of permanency with consequential monetary benefits from 04-06-1996, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each, and costs of Rs.10,000/- each. The High Court upheld the order, finding no perversity or error of law. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in directing the petitioner to confer permanency benefits on the respondents who were engaged on contractual basis, and whether such direction amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The common judgment and order of the Industrial Court is upheld. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- permanency benefits
- contractual employment
- Item 6 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- Section 28(1) MRTU & PULP Act
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (01) 5
Writ Petition No.2097 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.2098 of 2015
Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A.M. Gaikwad for Petitioner; Mr. T.K. Prabhakaran i/b. Mr. A.S. Kulkarni for Respondent
Maharashtra State Electricity Board Thermal Power Station, Parli-Vaijnath, through its Chief Engineer (Generation)
Sudhir Kamalkar Ayachit and Anant Narhari Sonar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the order of the Industrial Court directing the petitioner to confer permanency benefits on the respondents.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash and set aside the common judgment and order of the Industrial Court.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the respondents were engaged on contractual basis and the Industrial Court erred in directing permanency benefits.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court allowed complaints ULP Nos.69/2003 and 71/2003, declaring unfair labour practice and directing permanency benefits from 04-06-1996, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each, and costs of Rs.10,000/- each.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court's order directing conferment of permanency benefits on contractual employees is legally sustainable.
Whether the petitioner's failure to grant permanency constitutes unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the respondents were purely contractual employees and the Industrial Court erred in granting permanency benefits.
Respondent argued that they had been working continuously since 1996 and the denial of permanency was an unfair labour practice.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court's order granting permanency benefits to contractual employees who have worked continuously for a long period is not perverse or erroneous in law. The failure to confer permanency amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The bone of contention of the learned Senior advocate Mr. Dixit for the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioners were engaged purely on contractual basis...
The Industrial Court has allowed the complaints filed by the respondents under Section 28 (1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971...
Procedural History
The respondents filed complaints ULP Nos.69/2003 and 71/2003 before the Industrial Court under Section 28(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court allowed the complaints on a date not specified. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2097 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.2098 of 2015 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the common judgment and order. The High Court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 01.09.2021, pronouncing it on 04.01.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 28(1), Item 6 of Schedule IV
